2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Community Services Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 11)

Hon. I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 12)

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

C. Trevena

J. Horgan

Child and Youth Statutes

(Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)

Hon. W. Oppal

M. Karagianis

L. Krog

N. Simons

A. Dix

Committee of the Whole House

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

L. Krog

Hon. W. Oppal

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment and

Income Assistance (continued)

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

[ Page 6123 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Services Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. I. Chong: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Community

Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Local governments play a key role in the

vibrancy and sustainability of all British Columbia communities — communities

where there are real economic opportunities, communities that are socially

responsive and environmentally sustainable, and communities where one size does

not fit all.

Resort-oriented communities face unique challenges as well as

opportunities, and this legislation provides important tools to recognize their

extraordinary circumstances and to let them thrive while we work towards

doubling tourism revenues by 2015. For example, how does a local government

ensure that there is housing for resort employees? What about the dollars needed

for visitor services and infrastructure? How can they make sure the development

is attractive, is sustainable and fits in with the community?

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act provides tools and

resources for these resort communities, as well as other amendments that can

help all local governments work more effectively, such as streamlining an aspect

of the bylaw ticketing system; enabling consistency and accountability regarding

land use regulations during multiphase developments; or for example, supporting

Vancouver in establishing a community energy utility system, an authority that

all other municipalities have.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act is about balance.

It's about effectiveness and opportunity for local government and their citizens

throughout British Columbia. It's about ensuring economic potential, including

tourism and resort opportunities. So not only is British Columbia the best place

on earth to live and work, but it is the best place on earth to visit and play.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Community Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

[1005]

Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate of Bill 12,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in

Section A, the continued

estimates debate for the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Second Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTESAMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007, now be read a second time.

Bill 12 amends a number of statutes. Minor amendments will update

the Architects Act and Architects (Landscape) Act to reflect the new name of the

University of British Columbia's school of architecture and landscape

architecture. Amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act will ensure that

professional engineers and geoscientists in the province are sufficiently and

appropriately regulated and that the Association of Professional Engineers and

Geoscientists has the legislative authority and resources that it requires to

protect the public interest.

These amendments will clarify the association's mandate and

improve public protection by permitting mandatory professional development and

modernizing investigation, discipline, dispute resolution and enforcement

mechanisms. The amendments will also clarify and streamline the legislation by

removing unintended restrictions on the ability to seal professional documents

by allowing electronic ballots, by simplifying and improving administrative

processes, and by removing provisions meant to be transitional.

Bill 12 will enable the repeal of the Music Teachers (Registered)

Act, which establishes the B.C. Registered Music Teachers Association and

creates a right to title for its members. The association will reincorporate

under the Society Act, which under

part 10 offers superior mechanisms for

protecting the occupational titles of its members.

The New Relationship Trust Act will also be amended by this bill.

The act delivers a provincial commitment to provide $100 million for the New

Relationship Trust, a not-for-profit corporation which supports

capacity-building so that first nations people can share in the economic and

social development of the province. Directors to the board are appointed by a

number of first nations organizations and government. The proposed amendments

will allow more latitude for the

[ Page 6124 ]

appointment of organizations to recruit the very best candidates without

imposing unnecessarily restrictive time lines.

Amendments to the Child Care Subsidy Act will modernize the rules

for sharing and verifying information by making it possible for government to

look into the unsolicited third- party tips if they relate to a person's

eligibility for a subsidy. This is consistent with a verification and the audit

powers in the Employment and Assistance Act.

Bill 12 also amends the Employment and Assistance Act. Currently

the appeal panels of the employment assistance appeal tribunal must be composed

of three members. The amendment will allow the tribunal chair to appoint panels

of one, two or three members. This will afford operational flexibility to

convene panels in a timely manner, especially in areas where recruitment is

difficult.

The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act

will be amended to repeal the definition of "health professional" and replace it

with "prescribed professional." This will provide flexibility to define approved

professionals by regulation.

[1010]

The use of the term "prescribed professional" also reflects that

both health professionals and non-health professionals are crucial in providing

supportive information as part of the persons-with-disability designation

process.

Amendments to the Coal Act will afford private property owners new

notice provisions before free miners enter their land. These amendments are

intended to help reduce conflict by promoting and facilitating communication

between free miners and landholders.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

This bill also introduces amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act.

Similar to the amendments to the Coal Act contained in this bill, these

amendments will reduce conflict by affording private property owners new notice

provisions before mineral developers enter their land. Further amendments will

add to the streamlining of the mineral title registry brought about by the

implementation of the Mineral Titles Online registry in 2005.

Finally, two additional amendments will provide for greater

security of title by confirming mapped positions of claims and issuance of a

lease based on that confirmed position.

Bill 12 will also amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

Currently, those exploring for oil and gas in British Columbia may lease the

government's underground oil and gas rights for a period of either five or ten

years, after which they are allowed to retain all the rights from the surface of

the ground down to the bottom of the deepest zone in which the oil and gas has

been found. The deeper rights return to the government and may then be leased to

others who wish to explore for deeper oil and gas.

The proposed amendment will allow the initial leaseholder to

retain only the rights within any zone or zones in which oil and gas is found,

but not the rights to any other zones. Thus, both shallower and deeper zones

will be made available for others to explore and develop, creating greater

development opportunities and increasing revenue to the province.

In addition, the bill proposes to repeal the Parole Act. In July

2006 the government publicly announced the decision to eliminate the B.C. Board

of Parole and to transfer the responsibility for parole administration of

provincial offenders to the National Parole Board. These changes will bring B.C.

in line with the national standard, as Ontario and Quebec are the only other

provinces who maintain their own parole boards.

With the repeal of the Parole Act, the federal government will

have the responsibility for parole matters, and parole decisions will be carried

out by the National Parole Board.

Finally, amendments to the Police Act will restructure the way

police services are financed. Local property taxpayers and municipalities with

populations over 5,000 presently contribute 70 percent to 100 percent of their

policing costs, while those in rural areas contribute significantly less.

Municipalities with populations of under 5,000 make no contribution.

With these new provisions, these areas will now collectively

contribute up to 50 percent. The costs will be apportioned to each community

using a balanced formula that combines property assessment values and

population. The amounts will be requisitioned and collected in the same manner

as the School Act.

L. Krog: I always enjoy the opportunity to stand and speak to

a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It's such a thrill for the public to see

these bills come before the House. They never know what exactly they're going to

contain. It's a wonderful grab-bag of legislative reform sometimes and what we

in the opposition like to think of as sneaky little tricks the government might

try to pull to slide things past us. I'm sure that's not the case.

I see the member from Comox has sat up. I'm making a small joke

here this morning, Member. You can relax and take your blood pressure down.

[1015]

There are, however, a number of items in this bill that do raise

the concern of the opposition quite legitimately. With respect to the changes

around child care subsidy, we have concerns that these provisions in fact

represent a further intrusion into privacy matters and indicate a significant

lack of trust in people who actually apply for assistance from the government.

It's not the most pleasing measure that the government has put

forward in this particular area. Requiring the provision of further personal

information raises great concerns, particularly around the issue of security.

There is no question that on various occasions, governments have lost

information of a personal nature. Citizens have a right to be concerned about

what will happen to the kind of personal information that will be provided.

[ Page 6125 ]

It's certainly not clear from the statute exactly what personal information

will be required or whether regulations may require further information that

would not be appropriate, useful or needed in order for the government to

achieve its aims in this area.

Certainly, it's fair to say that we on this side will be

supporting the New Relationship Trust Act provisions allowing for flexibility

around appointments. But with respect to changes to the Employment and

Assistance Act, we have some genuine concerns. Unfortunately, not all members

who wish to speak to that will have an opportunity this morning to raise that

particular issue.

I noted the Attorney General referred to the problem of being able

to convene tribunals in a timely manner. As much as one appreciates that this

may provide a difficulty for government in order to ensure that tribunals are

available, the opposition's response is obvious. Surely if these positions are

difficult to fill, then the government — which seems to have had no problem

historically substantially raising the wages paid to very senior public servants

or heads of organizations like Partnerships B.C. — shouldn't have much

difficulty making it somewhat more attractive for people to participate in these

panels and therefore provide a forum of justice that is certainly due to people

in this area.

I can tell the Attorney General that in my office, issues around

social assistance are the dominant theme of complaint and concern. The

opportunity to have a system that is fair and that provides a full opportunity

for people to receive justice, I would suggest, is far more guaranteed by a

tribunal of three than by a single tribunal officer.

The Attorney General, having been well familiar in his career with

the Court of Appeal, appreciates that generally speaking, the Court of Appeal

sits in panels of three. There is a very good reason for that. It enables other

views to be exchanged and considered by the tribunal to ensure that justice is

done. It's the opposition's belief that by reducing the minimum to one, you are

raising the distinct possibility, and indeed I would suggest probability, that

justice will not be done in all cases.

Of course, we are talking about people who are in an extremely

vulnerable position to begin with, for whom the success of an appeal means a

great deal more than perhaps the successful appeal of a traffic violation to an

ordinary citizen who can afford to drive a motor vehicle. We are talking about

issues that are enormously important to those who have to make these appeals.

With respect to the issues around the abolition of the Parole

Board, I suppose we on this side of the House are always delighted to see costs

passed up the train, so to speak, to the federal government as opposed to the

provincial government, although it's not clear from the Attorney General's

remarks this morning whether or not that will be the case. Certainly, we are

hopeful that it may represent a reduction in government costs and perhaps some

useful standards that will be more national in focus.

Around the Mineral Tenure Act, the Attorney General is well aware

that this is a matter of enormous concern to British Columbians. They have

discovered, much to their chagrin, that complete strangers, as far as they're

concerned, have the opportunity to come on to their land. Admittedly, there is

indeed a requirement that they put it back in place, so to speak, and restore it

to its former state. But during the course of any exploration or mining activity

or something of that nature, this comes as a pretty dramatic shock.

[1020]

For those of us who live on Vancouver Island and are familiar with

the E&N land grant, it's perhaps less of a shock. But other British Columbians

in this province are very concerned and have raised this concern publicly. A

number of organizations have raised this concern around the ease with which

their quiet enjoyment of their privately owned property can be disturbed by

individuals or corporations seeking to profit from the mineral resources under

the land.

This is a matter of no small importance. The measures, it would

appear, are simply more of a band-aid rather than addressing the serious nature

of this problem and its impact on British Columbians. The fact is that allowing

a little more notice is not going to make British Columbians feel much more

secure in the ownership of a property that they buy in good faith.

With respect to the Registered Music Teachers Act, my

understanding is that this statute or a form of it has been around since 1907.

In fact, this change, if you will, or this opportunity for cabinet to be given

authority to repeal the act raises some serious concerns for music teachers who

wish to ensure a level of professionalism in this province. Surely the public

has a right to expect that before this happens….

I trust the Attorney General can give this House some assurance

that before this happens, those who have worked hard to attain a professional

status and those who employ music teachers or take lessons will be able to be

satisfied that their interests in the quality of their profession are in fact

being protected.

There has certainly been a great deal of debate in this House in

the last few weeks over the issue of private colleges, etc. This likewise raises

some concerns on our part, on this side of the House.

With respect to the Police Act, this has been a longstanding

difficulty. As much as one appreciates the serious concerns of those who live in

larger municipal centres and cities in this province, the fact is that rural

folks do not receive the benefits of many services that those of us who live in

urban areas do. They are now being asked to pay for a portion of policing costs,

which historically was not the case. And as much as this is an issue of

fairness, surely the government in these circumstances — we suggest on this side

of the House — needs to seek more input from stakeholders, local governments and

landowners.

This is an issue of serious concern. If you are living miles and

miles away from the nearest police officer or police station, what level of

taxation are you expected to pay as opposed to someone who lives in

[ Page 6126 ]

Surrey–Green Timbers, for instance, and can have a police officer at their

door within a couple of minutes by calling 911? We are talking about very

significant differences in the level of service that can be provided.

Fairness is the issue here. British Columbians are willing to pay

for government if they get services, and they expect to pay for services that

they may not need today but will need tomorrow or that their children may need

some year down the road. But the fact is that if we are going to increase taxes

on rural British Columbians who in many cases do not receive the benefit of

publicly delivered hydro power or who live on dirt roads or who live miles away

from other government services, surely the issue of fairness must be paramount.

It would seem that the government, in fairness, should be talking

more about ensuring that local governments receive appropriate assistance from

the provincial government in order to deliver these services. In other words, we

want to see the money, and that is an important issue for those of us on this

side of the House.

Clearly, there are a number of areas that I have referred to this

morning which raise concerns for the opposition. Committee stage of this bill

will be of no small importance as we try to ensure that the proposed changes set

out in Bill 12 are in fact in the best interests of British Columbians, reflect

their needs and reflect the fairness that is appropriate and that all British

Columbians are entitled to receive when dealing with the provincial government.

I know that other members wish to speak to this matter this

morning. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

[1025]

C. Trevena: I'm speaking about the one

section in the bill

about the changes on child care subsidy, where it would allow the minister to

collect "third-party tips." It is already being dubbed a snitch line or a snoop

line.

I think there are many concerns, as my colleague mentioned —

concerns about security of information, concerns about the lack of trust. I

understand what the Attorney General is saying — that this is already part of

the employment and income assistance act and that it's to bring child subsidy in

line with that. However, that act and the decision to have third-party intrusion

in that are not very healthy either.

My concerns are quite strong on the fact that allowing a third

party to come and allegedly say that somebody is or isn't eligible for child

care subsidy opens the way for malicious gossip and attacks on individuals. It

will be very time-consuming to check these out, and I believe it's unnecessary.

We're not talking, with child care subsidy, a huge amount of money. I cannot see

that people are going to be willingly trying to defraud the government and the

province of British Columbia of amounts of money through maliciously defrauding

the child care subsidy system.

We have seen the number of children who are eligible for subsidy

actually drop from 40,000 in '05-06 to 24,400 in this coming year, '07-08.

That's the target, so we're seeing a decline in the numbers of children who will

be eligible for child care subsidy. To put this extra question mark over those

parents who are claiming subsidy is a great concern.

There is also the issue that parents already have a huge amount of

detail that they have to go through when they're filling out their subsidy form.

So there is the question of why this is necessary. I am very concerned.

We're already hearing that there are clawbacks going on from

people who, through no fault of their own, have been overpaid subsidy and are

now having to repay this. We are obviously talking about very vulnerable

families and vulnerable children who are now being put in a more precarious

position because of the repayment of subsidy.

I have to ask, and will ask when we get to the committee stage,

whether the decision to have this third-party tips line is part of that process

to really give the rubber stamp to something that's already going on.

On that note, I'll leave it. I will be asking a number of

questions for clarification in the committee stage. However, my concerns are

that this implies a huge lack of trust in the people of B.C. who are claiming

child care subsidy and could open the way to malicious attacks on people's good

standing. I think it's going to be exceedingly time-consuming to check all these

out and completely unnecessary.

J. Horgan: I rise to make a few comments at second reading

on Bill 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — the first of a couple, I

bet, as we're so early in the session.

In particular, I want to touch upon those amendments to the

Mineral Tenure Act. I've had a discussion with the minister, and I certainly

look forward to a more detailed discussion at committee stage of this

legislation on how these amendments will affect fee simple landowners and what

benefit there will be to free miners and those who are staking claims on other

people's property — or at least that's the perception.

Down here in the city we have a sense that when we purchase our

home and we purchase the property it sits on, we're not going to have a free

miner show up one day and start prospecting for precious metals. That's a

reasonable assumption for landowners to make.

[1030]

I know that in the throne speech, the government signalled that

they were going to address this challenge. Certainly, one of the more vocal

groups opposed to this legislation, the B.C. landowners rights group, an

organization located in Vernon, has been quite vocal — and rightly so, as a

landowner protection group trying to protect their property from intrusion by

free miners.

Of course, the mining sector is a significant portion of the B.C.

economy, and those resources that we are able to find in the northern and rural

areas of British Columbia are paying for the urban amenities that we all

appreciate here in the lower Island. I know the

[ Page 6127 ]

minister and I are of one mind on that. However, it still seems incongruous

for most folks to have somebody show up one day and start poking around in their

back yard saying: "I'm sorry; you don't own the rights to the minerals

underneath your sod lawn or your rose garden."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm looking forward very much to probing a little bit deeper on

these issues at committee stage, but I wanted to get an opportunity at second

reading, hon. Speaker, to recount for you some of my concerns about the various

changes in the act. As I say, I talked to the minister about this. I put him on

notice that I will be representing the interests of those who don't believe

these amendments have gone far enough. Certainly the requirement for notice of

attending onto a person's property is a step in the right direction, but as I

understand it from those who have certainly been writing me as the Energy and

Mines critic and other members of our caucus on this side, particularly the

member for Nelson-Creston, this is a significant issue.

I know there are many people in the province who are very

concerned about it. I appreciate that the minister is new to the portfolio and

has picked up this amendment that's been worked on for some time. He's going to

carry it forward with aplomb and enthusiasm. There are certainly some

deficiencies, as I see it, and I think we'll be able to highlight those at third

reading.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 12 be referred to the

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 7,

Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007.

CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES

(REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT)

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

In April 2006 the hon. Ted Hughes presented a report to the

government, the B.C. Children and Youth Review , with 62 recommendations

for sweeping changes to our child welfare system. I'm here today to talk about

22 of those recommendations that will be implemented through amendments to the

Child, Family and Community Service Act and through a full proclamation of the

Representative for Children and Youth Act, including the amendments we are

proposing to the act in the bill before us today.

Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act in

part

1 of the bill build upon the amendments that were made last spring. The

provision for a director's review of services under the act to a child or the

child's family has been clarified and strengthened, while the list of purposes

of a review, including a public accountability, remains unchanged.

A new requirement is for production of a report to ensure that

each review is completed and will clarify a director's ability to release a

finalized report. Legislative authority has been established for a director to

release information in the report in accordance with the regulations. The

regulation will strike a balance between the public accountability and

protecting the privacy of children and their families. This is consistent with

Mr. Hughes's recommendation and with the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act provisions that already apply to these reports when they are

requested under an FOI request.

[1035]

The Representative for Children and Youth Act received third

reading and royal assent at the close of the last session of the House. At the

time I committed to a public consultation on the legislation in anticipation for

further amendments in

part 2 of the bill, now tabled for second reading. Our

consultations included discussions with public agencies interested in or

affected by the legislation, including the Ombudsman, the Information and

Privacy Commissioner, the comptroller general, the Ministry of Children and

Family Development, and other social service ministries.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In addition, comments on the legislation were solicited from

approximately 40 community service agencies and 70 aboriginal organizations and

service providers. On the basis of these discussions and consultations, there is

widespread support for many of the Hughes recommendations, including the

creation of the new representative's office as an independent officer of the

Legislature.

Some concerns were expressed, however, about the extent of the

representative's jurisdiction and the powers of the representative to access

confidential records in the control of other public officials, including the

Ombudsman and other officers of the Legislature. These issues are addressed in

part 2 of this bill.

Several aspects of

part 2 of the bill are also critical to ensure

a smooth transition from the current office for children and youth to the new

representative's office. These provisions deal with the scope of the

representative's jurisdiction and with the sharing and disclosure of

information. Both of these issues were considered at

[ Page 6128 ]

length by Mr. Hughes's review. They have also been the subject of extensive

discussion and consultation since the act was passed in May 2006.

Part 2 of the bill before us includes important related amendments

to the Representative for Children and Youth Act, which will address the orderly

transfer of records from the office for children and youth — a government entity

— to the representative as an officer of the Legislature, the timing for

submission of service plans and the excluded status of the representative's

staff.

In accordance with the Hughes recommendations, a representative is

to oversee the activities of any person providing service to children, youth or

their families under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As the

Representative for Children and Youth Act currently provides, agencies funded

through sources other than the provincial government — including federal or

private agencies designated as directors under the CFCSA — are excluded from the

scope of the representative's jurisdiction.

The amendments in

part 2 of the bill before us today give the

representative express jurisdiction to monitor and to investigate services

provided by agencies which are not public bodies, including, most importantly,

delegated aboriginal agencies. As these agencies provide services to the

majority of children in care who are receiving services from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, the amendments in

part 2 of the bill confirm

the government's commitment to fully implement key recommendations in the Hughes

review.

Several information and privacy issues were left unresolved when

the Representative for Children and Youth Act was passed in the spring of 2006.

Time was simply not available at that time to consider the right legislative

balance between the representative's obligation to report publicly and the

representative's duty to respect the privacy interests of children, their

families and the staff engaged in service delivery.

In addition, detailed consideration was not given to the

relationship between the representative and other officers of the Legislature,

who at the same time might also be engaged in their own independent

investigations or reviews of related matters.

[1040]

Section 16 of the current act requires the representative to apply

some of the access provisions from the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act in determining what information to disclose in a report. The use of

access provisions from that act in this manner for an officer of the Legislature

is unprecedented. Their use could also serve as an impediment for the

representative in reporting out at the end of an investigation and in achieving

the kind of public accountability that Mr. Hughes envisioned.

Section 16 of the current act also contemplates that an

investigative report could be severed at different times or in different ways

before it could be made available to individual recipients and that some

recipients, including the Legislative Assembly's Select Standing Committee on

Children and Youth, could be required to enter into confidentiality agreements

with the representative.

Confidentiality agreements of this nature would be impractical,

cumbersome and unenforceable. Furthermore, the extensive severing of public

reports, as permitted under the current

section 16 of the act, could be expected

to weaken or undermine the more open and transparent processes recommended by

Mr. Hughes.

Section 14 in the bill addresses these issues by adding a new

section, 15.1, to the act.

Section 14 of the bill permits frank disclosure by

the representative to service providers, to family members and to others during

the course of an investigation before recommendations are made public and the

investigation is concluded.

The approach set out in

section 14 of the bill is intended to

encourage a more open and collaborative process among the agencies responsible

for providing service to children and youth. It has been adapted from processes

currently authorized under the Ombudsman Act.

As a corollary to

section 14 in the bill, the report which is

released at the end of an investigation, under

section 18 of the act, will be a

public document issued in full without severance.

There are specific guidelines in

section 15 of the bill that amend

section 16 of the act and that require the representative, first, to consider

whether the disclosure of personal information is necessary to support the

report's findings and recommendations and, second, to weigh the public interest

in disclosure against privacy interests of individuals on a case-by-case basis.

The new guidelines in

section 15 of the bill give the

representative the authority to consider what information to release within the

factual context of each individual investigation and case. These guidelines will

be particularly important in tragic circumstances where a child's death has been

widely reported in the media and continued public scrutiny might be seen to

further harm or traumatize surviving family members.

Section 10 of the act is also being amended to limit the

representative's right to information that is in the custody or in the control

of an officer of the Legislature or that is otherwise protected by

section 51 of

the Evidence Act.

The amendments in

section 10 of the bill protect confidential

investigations being carried out by the Ombudsman and other officers of the

Legislature and protect confidential committee reviews into hospital practices.

It is both inappropriate and unnecessary for the representative to have the

power to compel information in either of those particular circumstances.

Other amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act

are intended to streamline the legislation and facilitate an orderly transition

from the office for children and youth to the new office of the representative.

In this respect, there are amendments which provide for an orderly transfer of

records and the confidentiality of information and records.

Section 24 of the

bill achieves that goal as well.

[1045]

[ Page 6129 ]

The objective here is to adjust the dates and timing for the

submission of the representative's first service plan to reflect the time taken

to recruit, appoint and establish the new representative and her office; to

address the status of the representative's office as excluded employees under

the Public Service Labour Relations Act, consistent with past legislation and

practice for other officers of the Legislature; as well, to streamline and

clarify the functions of the representative to address confusion and ambiguities

which were brought to the government's attention during the consultative

process.

Section 9 of the bill repeals and replaces what is currently

section 6

of the act.

The initiatives we are considering today address the inclusion of

delegated aboriginal agencies within the scope of the representative's

jurisdiction and the appropriate balancing between public accountability on the

one hand and personal privacy on the other hand.

The amendments in

part 2 of the bill are also central to the

effective functioning of the new representative's office and necessary to effect

a seamless transfer of responsibilities from the child and youth officer to the

new representative.

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Children and Family

Development, let me conclude by saying there is widespread support for the

amendments that we are considering here today. As we move forward, our

government remains firmly committed to building a strong and publicly

accountable system for support for children, youth and their families in this

great province. The amendments in this bill before us today will allow the

government to achieve these important public policy goals.

I wish to acknowledge those who have contributed to the

transformation of services for children and youth with the establishment of the

new Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, from the hon. Ted

Hughes and his dedicated team, through community agencies and individuals who

participated in their review, to the dedicated public officials who have

committed themselves and who have responded to the Hughes review and worked

diligently to ensure its early and effective implementation.

I am indebted to all of them, and thank them on behalf of the

government of British Columbia, the children and youth of this province, their

parents, their families and communities. I look forward to the debate which

follows.

M. Karagianis: I am happy to stand today and engage in the

debate at the invitation by the previous speaker, the Attorney General. I

actually see that this bill is a partnership with the Coroners Act, which was

also tabled in the House here.

In fact, these two together should be called the reparation bills

because these are steps towards repairing the devastation that was wreaked on

the province by the actions of this government in 2002 with the destruction of

the previous children's representative office and, as we know, the historical

issues around the files that were transferred to the Coroners Service without

adequate mandate or resources. Consequently, hundreds and hundreds of children's

death reviews were lost and to this day have remained incomplete. In many ways

this bill, in conjunction with that, takes the first steps towards trying to

repair some of the damage done there.

I know that the Attorney General has evoked the hon. Ted Hughes's

name throughout his comments in introducing this bill. But in fact I would say

that this bill has not explicitly addressed many of the concerns that the hon.

Ted Hughes recommended to us here with his report.

Ted Hughes recommended that MCFD review every death and injury of

children in care regardless of the circumstances. I do not believe that this

bill actually has gone far enough to be explicit in covering off that

recommendation from Mr. Hughes.

[1050]

In addition, Ted Hughes said that the ministry should adopt a

common review tool to guide the conduct of case reviews across all problem areas

that are relevant in the life of a child who has died or been seriously injured.

Again, I think that the lack of that explicit direction in this bill does not

well serve the recommendations that came from Mr. Hughes.

Nonetheless, I do know that the new children's representative is

an extremely knowledgeable individual. I would anticipate that any deficiencies

in this act will certainly be addressed as time goes on, both in how the

representative carries out the work from day to day in her responsibilities, and

certainly in how it actually applies in reality to the goals that she herself

has set for that office. I expect that any shortcomings will probably be

addressed as time goes on, and it's my hope that we'll see some amendments

coming forward to make this bill actually work in the manner in which it was

intended — I certainly hope — to follow the Hughes recommendations.

I do have some concerns about other things that are missing from

this bill and, in particular, two aspects of this. One is, again, some language

section 6 about cabinet determining the criteria used for reviews and in some

way trying to prescribe the actions of this children's representative. As

always, I think government has to be very cautious here in both the real and

perceived interference in the independence of this office. Because the Public

Inquiry Act debate that has just taken place actually resulted in no changes

being made to that act, in conjunction with any kind of language in here that

talks about cabinet's ability to determine any criteria, I think we have to be

very cautious of that.

I think that the importance here of the independence of this

children's representative office is the single biggest aspect of the actions

that this government has been forced to take in reinstating this representative.

That needs to be left very clear in the public's eye as being untampered with

and unprescribed by cabinet or by government in any way. I will certainly be

having those questions here in the House when that

section comes up for debate

at committee.

[ Page 6130 ]

I would say the other piece that for me is clearly missing from

this is in

section 9: the omission of any direct language about the

representative's mandate covering children in the home of a relative. These

individuals — and there are thousands of them here in the province of British

Columbia — who are in the home of a relative are seen as not receiving services

of government and are therefore not covered under this bill, and in many ways

are the ignored and forgotten children here in British Columbia.

We hear repeatedly from families that they are not treated in the

same way as foster care parents, that they are not treated in the same way as

other children who are in the protection of government. In fact, if we look at

the genesis of the debate and the instatement of this children's representative,

it was around children in the home of a relative, children who were not seen as

being specifically and directly under the care of government.

I think the omission of clear language to protect those

individuals and to expand the tools and mandate of our children's representative

to those individuals is a huge omission in this bill. I will certainly be

requesting of government that there be an amendment — that they seriously

consider an amendment to the bill at committee stage that will expand that

language and ensure that the representative clearly has a mandate to include

those individuals.

Certainly, the language…. I think even Ted Hughes recognized this.

He talked about the fact that government needed to extend the definition to

children who had been in the care of government in the past 12 months — not just

currently in care but who had received services at any time.

[1055]

I think that is probably the largest omission in this current

bill, and I would hope that government will seriously consider amending language

in order to include them, because I know that that particular vulnerable group

is going to be the one that causes the most concern here. It has, at this point,

been the driving force behind the changes the government has been forced to make

in their own directive around cancelling the original Children's Commission and

the actions subsequent to that that have led us to this through the Hughes

report.

The other thing that gives me some concern here is the prescribed

time line of pushing the service plans back to 2008-2009. I have to confess that

I'm a bit confused as to why government would be pushing the time line back so

far when in fact the children's representative is way ahead of government on

this.

There is both the reference of a service plan and a presentation

to the Standing Committee on Children and Youth, and the children's

representative is ahead of government by a long way on this. She has already

presented to this committee and I suspect would have no plans whatsoever to

delay reporting out a service plan or anything else until 2008-2009. That seems

like such a long way away. So in some ways, it seems that the bill is a bit

redundant, if in fact action is already taking place that negates some of the

language in here.

I think that we have seen clearly, as well, that the new

children's representative has already made some innovative proposals to

government that are both refreshing and sensible and that are pragmatic. I would

sincerely hope that this bill can be amended to catch up with the children's

representative, because she's racing far ahead of government on this. The

language already seems outdated in what the expectations are of this

representative.

Aside from the proposed amendments that we will bring here at

committee stage, I expect there will be a number of amendments to this that will

be driven and impelled by the children representative's office and actions in

her own right, and that either through amendments to the bill and the

legislation or through regulation, some of these issues can be addressed — both

those I've raised here today and those the children's representative herself has

already foreshadowed. That's the only way to make this legislation relevant and

real. In fact, I think that's an important point here today. It does have to

have relevancy, especially given the history that has led us to this and the

other bills around the children's representative.

I think that this bill does go far enough in giving the

representative, initially, the tools and the support system she needs in order

to carry out her job and to begin to implement her actions at the beginning of

April, as she has indicated. I will save questions and debate for the committee

stage and hope that we can look to government to put some tighter language, more

explicit references in here, especially around the issue of children in the home

of a relative. I think it is the biggest vulnerability we see right now, and I

would anticipate that government will take seriously our recommendations on

that.

I will certainly at this point yield to other speakers on this

matter.

L. Krog: I am honoured to make my modest contribution to

the debate this morning following the very thoughtful and intelligent remarks

from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

My recollection is that there are three types of wrongdoing. There

is misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. In some respects, the history

that…. All of this mess, I would argue, created by this government, has brought

us to this place today. I would not accuse them of malfeasance in the damage

done to the officer of the Legislature, which we have so recently instated. But

I think there was certainly misfeasance in the sense that they did not consider

fully the ramifications of what they did.

Having corrected itself, so to speak, and asked absolution for its

sins…. We have now appointed, I think, a remarkable individual to be the child

and youth representative in this province. So I would say, in fairness to the

government, that they're on the right track at last — in one aspect of their

administration of the province's affairs over the last six years — but only

having got there after making grievous errors that caused a great deal of

destruction and sadness in this province, particularly with respect to the

children under the government's care.

[ Page 6131 ]

When I said that all aspects of what I talked about — in terms of

misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance — are present, surely nonfeasance

applies here. As the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin pointed out, the Hughes

recommendations — which were substantial and cogent and supported by every

member of this House, as I recall — are not in fact reflected in what is being

proposed.

[1100]

The government historically since 2001 has, where it wanted to,

moved very quickly on issues that it thought were important. Whether it be

dramatic tax cuts without considering the effect on government revenues or

whether it's substantial changes to existing laws that might have dramatic

impacts, the government has been willing to drive that agenda very quickly.

Here we are with an opportunity to correct a gross error or a

series of errors, and we are taking what can only be described as baby steps. I

would have thought that the government, having this opportunity in front of it

and having had months and months now — a year, really — to consider the report

of Ted Hughes, who is probably one of the most respected individuals ever to

have served the public in this province…. One would have thought that by now, in

the spring of 2007, they could have come up with something more than what is

proposed by Bill 7.

I'm not going to argue that Bill 7 isn't progress. Perhaps the old

phrase, "You should never look a gift horse in the mouth," may apply. But

considering the seriousness of the issue, surely Bill 7 should be a fuller

document and should take us further down the road to implementing the

recommendations of the Hughes commission.

One would have thought that the Attorney General, in conjunction

with the minister responsible, would have tried to drive this agenda more fully

to ensure that children were appropriately protected in this province through

the new office of the child and youth representative.

I look forward to the amendments that will come forward in this

bill. I look forward to committee stage when we review this

section by section.

I look forward, hopefully, to this government being prodded by the

representations made to it on this side of the House.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I look forward to this government actually moving forward more

quickly. The session is not over. There is an opportunity to correct their path,

so to speak. There is an opportunity for them to move forward quickly on this.

Maybe this is just the first part of the full implementation of

the agenda and I'm being a little impatient here this morning, but I suspect

not. Like Oliver Twist, we want some more, and quite legitimately, the children

of this province deserve more.

N. Simons: I'm pleased to stand and offer my comments

regarding Bill 7. I think that it's good to see that the government is moving

along with this process of bringing some accountability and some sort of

framework for the representative.

I have a few concerns that I think could be addressed through some

minor amendments, if government sees fit and if in fact my concerns aren't

already addressed by the legislation. The legislative

schedule obviously makes

the review of the legislation be done hastily, and perhaps we'll have some more

opportunity for clearer thought at the time of committee stage.

Let me just begin by saying that ultimately the goal of this

legislation in large

part is to ensure that there is clear, dispassionate and

neutral oversight for services provided to children in this province. What needs

to happen is to define what that neutral oversight will be and which children in

this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are numerous references to other governments and to

legislation passed by other governments. I think we need to clarify as to

whether or not that includes first nations governments, federal governments or

other legislation that impacts on children, or whether or not this legislation

applies only to children who are receiving delegated services from the

provincial government. There are numerous concerns in that respect. In

particular, I'd be interested in knowing what kind of discussions have been held

with first nations communities.

[1105]

The definition of "designated services" has slightly changed and

actually seems to have broadened slightly. I think that there are some areas of

further examination required in that respect.

Section 7, while it does clarify

that care services means child care services…. And no longer will the director

of adoptions be subject to the officer of children and youth's purview.

Section 13. I think my most serious problem is with

section 13.

This act and every consequential act since the appointment of the Representative

for Children and Youth — and in fact the development of that body, that office

of 30 employees and $5 million — were all a result of the acknowledged failure

of the previous governance authority, which had obviously changed what had been

a better system before.

If we can say that this particular bill, the child and youth

statutes bill, is an attempt to improve on the system we've decided is necessary

in this province — that we have an independent body overseeing things — then

let's find out….

Well, at the core, this legislation is designed to prevent

government or anyone else, including ministries in government, from suppressing

information and from keeping a lid on what could be potentially embarrassing to

them, potentially harmful to children or potentially destructive for families.

My most sincere concern with this legislation is that it doesn't

address what takes place when, as in the case of the young girl from Port

Alberni, the ministry decides that this is not a case that requires review. It

was only

[ Page 6132 ]

upon the engagement of an independent body that it was pointed out that in

fact further review was required. The representative having to wait one year

after critical injury or death will be a repeat of the problem that faced the

province after the death of the little girl in Port Alberni.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Ministry officials, independent examiners, were prevented from

accessing information that could potentially have saved the life of a child. We

have to wait one year or until the coroner's office has done its duty, which may

take longer than a year. We have to wait at least one year before the director

responsible for the provision of services is required to make changes.

Now, we know that we knew within weeks and perhaps months of the

death of the little girl from Port Alberni that an independent oversight

mechanism was necessary. However, despite that knowledge, government was able to

suppress that information, deflect attention from that information and begin

what is essentially a litany of cover-up.

My concern, to the hon. Attorney General, is that this delay….

This delay could potentially be an opportunity, a window, to correct what would

be an abject failure in policy before the year is up. Why should we wait if we

know, if the director knows, that there's a fundamental flaw, as there was in

the policy of this government? If there was a fundamental flaw that could

potentially be a critical or a fatal flaw, we should have the ability to address

that issue before the one year is up.

I believe that the Representative for Children and Youth should

have the authority to examine and make findings before a coroner's inquest or a

coroner's review has been completed — because of the delay, for one thing. The

second thing is that the expertise thus far has not resided with the office of

the coroner.

[1110]

When it comes to child death reviews, I would recommend to this

government that they have in place a system where somebody familiar with their

policies would be able to review, where the Representative for Children and

Youth will have an opportunity to say: "You've implemented this policy without

the appropriate foresight, without the appropriate study, without the

appropriate buy-in from the various communities on which it's being imposed."

You're imposing new legislation; we have no idea if it will work

or not. If it fails on its first attempt, as it did in 2002, as it did with the

little girl from Port Alberni, the first ever kith-and-kin placement…. If it's

so clear from the very first that we have a problem with policy, the Attorney

General should recognize that that understanding should happen immediately. We

do not wait one year for an administrative review or any review from a coroner.

We must not wait. We must not wait when it is possible that, in fact, the

changes that can be made could impact on the safety of children.

I find a fundamental flaw in

section 13, where it says that the

representative isn't authorized to investigate the critical injury or death of a

child until the earlier of one year after the critical injury or death and the

completion of the coroner's investigation, etc., etc., as written in Bill 7.

My request is to the Attorney General, the minister responsible

for this legislation, and to the Minister for Children and Families, who

represent our greatest asset, the children of this province — who, I am pleased

to see, are in the gallery listening to this debate. The fundamental reason we

have protections built in, checks and balances built into systems like this, is

to make sure we correct errors quickly — that we don't hide errors, that we

don't complicate matters by blaming third parties, that we actually get to the

root of the problem. If it is obvious — after a week, a month or even half a

year — to the Representative for Children and Youth, those changes should take

place.

We mustn't rely on external parties to determine, necessarily, at

the outset whether or not a review should or shouldn't take place. If a child

dies, a review should take place. It should be an independent review. It should

be a review that isn't hindered by the concerns of government and the delays and

cover-ups that we saw in the past. Those delays and cover-ups were not only,

potentially, a political thing; they did have an impact on the health of

children subsequently.

Hon. Speaker, I'm looking forward to being able to canvass these

issues with the Attorney General at the committee stage of debate. I believe,

obviously, that if we've pointed out a flaw that in fact was not noticed before,

perhaps government will make the appropriate amendments to this bill.

With that, I believe my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has some

comments.

A. Dix: It's a very positive thing, sometimes, to be able

to rise when progress is being made on issues that many people have worked on

over time. I think, in this issue, of the extraordinary work of aboriginal

social service agencies, social workers, parents and people of good faith who

have expressed concerns on the issues dealt with and touched on by this

legislation. The progress we've made in the last little while, after years of

reluctance on the part of this government, is very heartening. It's good to be

able to talk about legislation that moves things forward.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I wanted to raise a couple of points about the legislation,

though. I think one of the real, fundamental concerns was raised in the Gove

inquiry, subsequently in the Hughes report and by many people in the interim

period.

[1115]

One of the fundamental concerns around how we treat children —

children in need as well as children in care, children known to the ministry,

and children who need the ministry's protection and sometimes need the

ministry's and the government's support — is the tendency of the way we organize

government to ill-serve the children who need protection, services and support.

[ Page 6133 ]

This is an issue the Attorney General will know, because less than

a year ago we stood in the House to talk about the bill that was brought in. He

will remember, as I do, that the bill was brought in on short notice. I was very

gratified it was brought in. We had a good exchange at the time. One of the

issues we raised is the narrowness, the narrowing of focus and the narrow focus

of the role of the representative and the review process of the representative

on the Ministry of Children and Family Development itself. I raise this issue,

and I raised it with the minister at the time. I'm sure, in his closing remarks,

he'll deal with this at length.

The issue that I raised was a program that the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin has talked about. It involves, I think — if you consider the

number of children in care in total in British Columbia, a number almost

one-half of that size — about 5,000 children in a program called Child in the

Home of a Relative. I know we have a former Minister of Children and Family

Development here in the House, the member for Surrey–White Rock, who was very

concerned about these issues as well.

I know that those who work in this sector understand that one of

the challenges today is the poor and incomplete working relationship between the

Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and the Ministry of Children and

Family Development. This is vitally important because many of the children who

are candidates for protection end up in the program of Child in the Home of a

Relative. I believe that the child representative should have a responsibility

for reviewing those cases as well. They are strictly relevant because if you

follow the lives of children, you see how they move from one program to another

at times and how the need to combine information between those two ministries is

paramount.

I want to make the case that the child representative should have

specific responsibilities, where relevant, for children who are currently in

programs of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — and we've made

the case with the program Children in the Home of a Relative. We made the case

first here in the House to the Attorney General last year. We then made the case

in the committee to select the child representative to the Deputy Attorney

General, Mr. Seckel. We continue to make the case today that there is a need for

this. What we learned in the Gove inquiry, the Hughes report and many reports by

the children's commissioner is that one of the keys for government to respond

properly is to have a flow of information and a continuum of services between

ministries.

When government fails, it's frequently because children are lost.

They are dealt with by a social worker or an income assistance worker in the

Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. They disappear, and then they

reappear. This is when and this is how children frequently fall through the

cracks. That's why I think — and certainly our critic, the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin, has talked about this — it's vitally important that the new

child representative have responsibility and have an interest in the children

involved in the Child in the Home of a Relative program.

I want to make that case very strongly to the minister. We'll

continue to do so at committee stage. It's probably, with respect to an

amendment, beyond the scope of the legislation, so I don't believe an amendment

would be in order. But it reflects our collective desire to ensure that the

legislative supports and resources given to the child representative are

adequate to ensure that the failures of recent years are not repeated. This is

one of the areas that we have raised and that we hope that the Attorney General

will act upon.

Further, I want to say — and in fact we saw this — that one of the

challenges with the regime that was set up in 2002 with the elimination of the

children's commissioner was this very fact: there was inadequate communication.

I mean, I don't even need to say it. They lost 713 child death reviews; they

lost them. It is a grotesque example of lack of communication.

[1120]

It continues to be an issue within the government, continues to be

an issue with respect to child protection and continues to be an issue with

children known to the ministry or children who require the support of

government. Those children, I would argue, already don't get the supports that

they need to have an equal shot at life.

I believe the child representative should have a chance and have

the opportunity and the capacity to speak for those children too. I think it is

a flaw in approach. It's one we're going to continue to work on. I think the

Attorney General knows of our concern in this issue, and I hope he'll speak to

it.

I believe we need to ensure that these mistakes of the past are

not repeated, and these are historic mistakes. It's not just mistakes that have

occurred under the B.C. Liberal government. They are historic mistakes of the

system of allowing children who are known to the government, who are receiving

government programs, to fall through the cracks — to not have one set of people

dealing with a case or a child know what another set of people in government are

doing.

That can be catastrophic. We know it can be catastrophic. It has

shown to be catastrophic. It was catastrophic in the context of the severe cuts

imposed on the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the coroner's

office in 2002 with terrible, shocking consequences. In general, it's a

challenge for government on all occasions when dealing with the protection of

children.

I ask the Attorney General to consider those comments and to

respond to those comments, hopefully, as he summarizes debate on what I think is

a very important bill. I want to congratulate the government for moving forward

on some of these amendments. There's more work to do, and the most important

part of that work is to ensure that social workers have the resources to protect

and support children, to ensure that children in British Columbia in the context

of growing child poverty have the supports they need to have an equal shot at

life — to have every opportunity they can.

These issues are fundamental to what the child representative

should be doing and must be doing. I

[ Page 6134 ]

hope the government will respond and continue to ensure that the child

representative has the mandate to do what she needs to do and, just as

importantly, that social workers, ministry officials, government officials and,

most importantly, children have the resources to be able to live their dreams

and their hopes in life.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement)

Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee debate on Bill 6, Public

Inquiry Act.

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; H. Bloy

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:25 a.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: I note that the definition of participant in

section 1 talks about a person who's been provided with notice under

section 11.

Can the Attorney General explain what he anticipates in terms of the

participants being? In other words, are we talking about individuals against

whom a finding of misconduct may be made, or are we talking about people who

wish to participate for some other reason?

It's a very broad term, and I want to have some understanding from

the Attorney General of what exactly is meant by the legislation when we talk

about participant. Is it simply someone as is set out in

section 11(2) — and

11(3) allows others to apply, as well? What do we anticipate a participant to

be?

Hon. W. Oppal: With me today to support me during the

committee stage of the Public Inquiry Act are Deputy Attorney General Allan

Seckel and Russell Getz, legal counsel with the Ministry of Attorney General.

Section 11 particularizes the definition of participant under

section 1. It states that the

section permits people to apply to participate in

the commission after considering a number of factors: (1) whether the

applicant's personal interests may be affected by the findings of a commission,

(2) whether the applicant's participation will further the conduct of the

inquiry and (3) whether the applicant's participation would contribute to the

fairness of the inquiry.

So it's a fairly wide definition. It contemplates the commissioner

having a wide discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis who ought to

participate during the course of any inquiry.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could provide

some specific examples of the kinds of inquiries that he's no doubt anticipated

in bringing forward this legislation — some individuals — so that the public may

have a clear understanding of what a participant may be.

One understands that it can be a person who may have some

interest. But, for instance, if one were doing a public commission into the

state of some forest scandal in British Columbia, would every major forest

company be a logical participant because it may affect regulation? Would the IWA

constitute a participant if they wish to be involved? Would WorkSafe B.C. be a

participant? In other words, what are we talking about quite specifically?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to that question would depend

upon the terms of reference of any particular inquiry. Perhaps to further answer

the question, the example that comes to mind would be an inquiry into police

misconduct. A number of witnesses may be called who are police officers, and if

there is a possibility that the evidence that would be elicited at the inquiry

would jeopardize a position or leave an officer…. There could be possible

charges arising out of the circumstances and the evidence, which may arise at

the inquiry, would, in all likelihood, be a participant.

L. Krog: I must say with some amusement that I note the

Attorney General keeps referring to police complaints and issues involving

police officers. He did so in the second reading debate. I think every officer

in British Columbia must now be quaking in their boots, wondering who's going to

be investigated by the public inquiry the Attorney General may be contemplating.

That aside for a moment, it's not clear to me, but I wonder if the

Attorney General can clarify. I presume that all persons who became participants

would be entitled to be represented by counsel.

[1130]

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 13 states what a participant may do

and the rights that accrue to a participant, including a right to counsel under

particular circumstances.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: I note the enthusiasm of the government

backbenchers to get through this bill fairly quickly. I

[ Page 6135 ]

hate to disappoint them, but I intend to ask questions on every section, so

perhaps they can restrain their incredible enthusiasm to speed through the

spring session of the Legislature.

With respect to

section 2, 2(1) refers to what the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers to be of "public interest." I'm just

wondering what the Attorney General believes that term to mean. Are we making

reference to perhaps the

Interpretation Act or something of that nature? Or are

you intending it to be just as broad as whatever cabinet brings into its little

head on any given day, so to speak?

Hon. W. Oppal: The term "public interest" is designed to be

sufficiently expansive and sufficiently broad to encompass the widest possible

range of potential subjects. As I'm sure the member realizes, the intent here is

not to constrain the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from what may be defined as

a public interest.

L. Krog: With respect to the setting of the purposes of the

commission, given the Attorney General's response to my question around the

issue of public interest, I'm wondering: does the Attorney General believe that

the definition of purposes or setting the terms of reference of the commission…?

Firstly, what does he see as the difference between them — the

purpose and the terms of reference? Are we talking about a broad document? Are

we looking for a general response? Or are we going to leave it so open that

cabinet may get to solve its problems, so to speak, by defining the terms of the

commission so narrowly that, in fact, the public will never get to the bottom of

the issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the answer to that is obvious.

There's a difference between what a purpose is, or the intent of any particular

inquiry, as well as specific terms of reference with which the inquiry ought to

proceed.

In other words, the terms of reference are always a guidance so

that there is some specificity to what the object of the inquiry is going to be.

I would think that would be apparent from the different subsections of 2(2).

L. Krog: Is it the plan to have cabinet define the purposes

of the commission, or will the potential commissioner be consulted with respect

to the terms of reference or the purpose for any commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: As a matter of law, it's clearly the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who would set the purpose of the inquiry. But I

can state that the practice is that when the terms of reference are specified,

then the commissioner is consulted.

L. Krog: With respect to the terms of reference of the

inquiry, do I read this

section to mean that the terms of reference could, in

fact, be expanded or contracted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the

initial creation of the commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is yes.

[1135]

L. Krog: With respect to the remuneration to be set for the

commissioners — compensation for expenses, if any — subject to the directives of

Treasury Board, in the past my understanding is that commissions have had a

fairly broad mandate with respect to that.

Is the government contemplating any guidelines around what will be

paid to a commissioner, what sort of budgets will be set?

Hon. W. Oppal: The commissions of inquiry have always been

subject to directives of the Treasury Board. However, that

section is not

designed to put constraints on commissions of inquiry.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: I am wondering what sort of issues the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the Attorney General is contemplating with

respect to joint commissions. The

section talks about the government of another

jurisdiction. Do I take it to mean that could include joint commissions with,

for instance, the state of Washington as opposed to the province of Alberta or

the Yukon?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no immediate contemplation, I can

tell the member. But one could easily imagine an issue that crosses borders. If

there's an issue of mutual interest between the state of Washington and the

province of British Columbia, that would be an example.

There may be something of marketing boards or something that is

interprovincial in nature that might well involve an agreement to establish a

joint commission. Those are two examples that come to mind.

L. Krog: When the

section speaks about an aboriginal

organization exercising government functions in British Columbia, can the

Attorney General explain what that means?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, obviously, it's intended to be broad.

We are still in the process of negotiating treaties with aboriginal people, so

that's the purpose of that — to take into consideration any amount of

flexibility that may be necessary for the future.

L. Krog: For instance, if the Nisga'a First Nation set up

some governmental body or organization within its jurisdiction — other than the

government, so to speak, of the Nisga'a people — would that be included in the

term "aboriginal organization exercising government functions"? In other words,

if they have delegated some authority to a body like that, would it in fact

include a body of that nature?

Hon. W. Oppal: Anything is possible, but that example may

not be entirely a realistic one.

[ Page 6136 ]

L. Krog: So I take it that we are giving the widest

possible latitude to government to enter into joint arrangements without having

to obtain any consent or approval from the Legislature.

[1140]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can answer that is

that the Legislature is really authorizing cabinet to enter into an agreement

with an aboriginal organization.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 3(2), which makes

reference to an order exempting "the commission from all or part of a provision

of this Act or the regulations made under it if necessary to avoid a conflict of

law."

Do I take it to mean that we are referencing, perhaps, joint

commissions involving other governments and, obviously, potentially different

rules around witnesses, participation or participants, under the meaning that

the Attorney General referred to earlier when I questioned him around the

definition section? Is that what we're making reference to? And perhaps the

Attorney General could explain how he sees that playing out.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm imagining that if a joint commission

between British Columbia and Alberta or British Columbia and Washington State

were to be held, the commissioners would be in a position to agree on the set of

procedural rules that ought to be followed in the circumstances.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has

received any advice or whether the trade, investment and labour mobility

agreement would have any impact on this particular section.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to give an example.

I'm not in a position to give advice on that question.

L. Krog: I'm not seeking advice. But I am concerned that

the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement requires harmonization of

certain rules. I'm just wondering: will the agreement in fact have an impact on

this legislation?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Charter of Rights has applicability

across the country. Any provisions that TILMA may have that are inconsistent

with the Charter would not be applicable because the Charter would prevail, and

that sets out the rights.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: With respect to the appointment of commissioners,

the

section talks about the appointment of one commissioner and the possibility

of appointing other commissioners.

My interest is in determining whether or not the legislation would

provide…. If one commissioner were appointed, and the commission got underway,

would in fact this permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint, for

instance, two other commissioners in addition to work on it, even though the

process had started?

Hon. W. Oppal: In my view,

section 5 does not contemplate

adding commissioners. One could imagine how unrealistic and impractical it would

be to add commissioners after a commission of inquiry has commenced. It would be

like bringing in another judge to hear a trial after the trial has started or

adding another juror after the commencement of a trial. It would not be

practical to do that.

Having said that, it may well be that if there's illness or death

or something of that sort, the section, under appropriate circumstances, may

contemplate the appointment of an additional or a replacement commissioner.

[1145]

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, my reading of

section 3 means

that, in fact, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has very broad discretion, not

limited by

section 5, to add commissioners, to drop commissioners, to replace

commissioners. It doesn't indicate any particular reasons, nor is there any

legislative requirement for reasons to be stated.

The Attorney General may say it's impractical or difficult, but my

reading of that

section is that it gives the broad discretion to cabinet to add,

subtract or to do, frankly, whatever it wishes with respect to the appointment

of commissioners. I'm wondering if the Attorney General agrees with that, or

whether he can advise me of something different.

Hon. W. Oppal: We might have to resort to the

Interpretation Act, which is not accessible to me at this time. We'll canvass

that statute over the break.

L. Krog: Then I'm reserving my right to ask further

questions with respect to

section

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

L. Krog: The head of a commission of inquiry now appears to

have some fairly specific responsibilities not contained in the existing

legislation, as I read it. It's more financial and very administrative in

nature. It talks about the effective management and operation of the commission,

ensuring that the commission is financially responsible and accountable.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can explain what constitutes

being financially responsible and accountable and what sanctions, if any, are

contemplated anywhere, with respect to a commissioner who is deemed by the

cabinet to be financially irresponsible and not accountable. In other words, who

gets to judge in this case whether a commissioner is, in fact, being financially

responsible and accountable?

[ Page 6137 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: Any commissioner who is appointed under this

legislation must follow the provisions of the Financial Administration Act,

which is governed by Treasury Board.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could repeat part

of that. I couldn't hear all of it.

Hon. W. Oppal: The commissioner is obligated by the

provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

L. Krog: I take it that there are sanctions provided in

that statute with respect to a commissioner not being financially responsible

and accountable. I'm just wondering why there isn't a particular cross-reference

to that in this section.

[1150]

Hon. W. Oppal: In a technical sense, it's an offence for

any person not to follow the Financial Administration Act — cabinet ministers

and people in government. I would suspect from that that a commissioner of

inquiry who is appointed under the act — the legislation would be applicable to

him or her as well.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: In terms of how the commission is going to work in

a practical way, the

section empowers the chief commissioner to appoint

employees in accordance with the Public Service Act, which I presume may involve

seniority in other issues. To exercise its powers, he can retain or engage

consultants, investigators, lawyers, expert witnesses or other persons

considered necessary. I note the Public Service Act doesn't apply to some of

those specialists.

When it comes, then, to the setting up of the commission and to

considering the budgetary responsibilities as outlined in

section 6, it seems to

me that anyone who's going to undertake the responsibility of being a chief

commissioner is going to want to know what they're undertaking.

If they wish to perform their task appropriately, it strikes me

that a commissioner is going to have to engage in a fairly extensive

consultation with government. It's very clear that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council gets to set the budget for the commission, and it

gets to pick the commissioner.

The commissioner has significant responsibilities that are now

clearly outlined in

section 6, so it strikes me that that commissioner is going

to have to know what they're doing. There is going to have to be an awful lot of

consultation with the commissioner before they undertake the task. Is that the

way the Attorney General sees it as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's a long history of…. The general

procedure is that the budgets are set in advance of the commission of inquiry

beginning its processes. But there's also a practice where, from time to time,

commissions have had revised financial challenges, and so they come back and ask

for more money. That's happened.

Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT

AND INCOME ASSISTANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $1,479,528,000 (continued).

The Chair: Did you have a comment to make, Minister?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes. I want to make a few comments just to

clarify a few numbers that were asked for yesterday.

The member opposite asked about the cost of the $50 shelter

increase for people on temporary assistance, and we didn't have that number

yesterday. The staff worked on it last night. The cost for that is $12 million

in 2007-2008.

Also, I just want to clarify a statement yesterday. Just for

accuracy, we gave round numbers. The member asked the percentage of clients

receiving the maximum shelter allowance, and I think we said about 60 percent.

[ Page 6138 ]

As a matter of fact, it's exactly 63 percent who paid more than the maximum

shelter for rent and utilities, and 17 percent paid exactly the maximum shelter

for rent and utilities. This means that 80 percent of clients were receiving the

maximum shelter allowance, and all this was before the recent rate increases. So

I'm pleased to provide the exact percentages.

My critic also quoted "an expected-to-work family of four with an

income of $1,101 per month." But with other child care credits and supplements,

the actual income is $1,704 per month. For the same family on PWD — persons with

disabilities — the total is $2,098 a month.

[1010]

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, Minister. The

information on some of the questions provides the accurate information. I

appreciate that.

I would like to start to ask a few more questions on the subject

we were talking about yesterday on the shelter allowance, the increase part of

it. Yesterday responding to my question with regard to the shelter allowance

passing through the client to the landlord, the minister once again admitted

that: "…we are after these unscrupulous landlords who will attempt to grab any

rent increase that we give. I was aware of it then, and I am aware of it now….

We are doing everything we can to prevent them from doing that." The minister

also admitted yesterday that the minister has been trying to fix this problem

since 2005 without any major success.

Another question with regard to the minister's comments in last

year's budget debate whereby the minister offered a solution to fix this problem

by combining both shelter allowance and the support allowance into one category

so that 100 percent of assistance goes directly to the clients. The minister, in

his response, once again admitted:

"Nothing has changed. I

still feel strongly that that's the way I would like to go. I've felt that way

for a long, long time. It's time we…. Well, I would like it to be time that we

quit separating the shelter allowance from the support allowance, pay people one

sum so that any of these unscrupulous landlords don't know what the shelter

allowance is, hopefully get it electronically deposited in our clients' bank

accounts and keep the cash off the streets.

"The problem is that we are unable to do it due to

technical difficulties. We just do not have the computer power at the moment to

do that. But we're working towards it. I would like to do it tomorrow, but we

just can't do it, or I would have done it by now. It's something that has been

on my mind for a long, long time, and something that we will eventually get to

do — I hope in the not too distant future."

My question to the minister, in light of both the comments

made by the minister, is: under the above-said challenging circumstances, would

it not be wise public policy to combine both increases — $50 shelter allowance

and $50 support allowance — into one and increase only the support allowance by

$100 until the minister is able to fix the computer problem and subsequently

combine both support and shelter allowance together?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, the member started off by

saying we have been working on this, the unscrupulous landlord situation,

without much success. I beg to differ. We've had quite a bit of success. We've

cut this down to a bare minimum. In fact, we are close to 90 percent of our

clients in the downtown east side having their cheques sent directly to the

landlord rather than the hotel manager. We are also closing in one by one on

these unscrupulous landlords with the help of the Vancouver police department.

So to say "without success" is not correct; we've had quite a bit of success.

I would just reiterate what I said yesterday. We would like to

combine the payments, and we're working towards that end. We're also checking

with other jurisdictions across the country to see what they do and exactly how

they do it. I've always believed that if somebody's got a wheel that works, you

don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can go and borrow one from someone else.

But it's something we're working towards, and we will get there before too long

— once we have the capacity to do it.

[1015]

On this recent increase. The rent supplement had not been

increased since 1992. For nine years the NDP had a chance to increase it, and

they didn't, and we were always getting hammered by everyone for not giving

enough shelter allowance. The Premier announced it at UBCM in the fall, and we

decided to go with the first shelter rate increase since 1992. That's the reason

we left it. Until we can combine them properly, we are pretty much obliged to do

that.

Which, incidentally…. Two points I want to make. That put the

expected-to-work singles, and children of families expected to work, at the

highest shelter rate in Canada, and his party voted against it.

J. Brar: Thank you once again for the clarification. The

question here is not whether the shelter allowance increase is good or bad. The

question here is whether that is going to help the most vulnerable people of the

province. In your own comments, which you made last year, which you also made

this year, you are of the view — it's not me; it's your comments — that at the

end of the day that $50 increase is going to go in the hands of the landlord,

and at this point in time there is no effective way that the government can stop

it, other than working hard trying to deal with it. I understand that part.

Having said that, one of the options you had at that time when you

made up your mind — particularly knowing the situation, the challenging

circumstances as to how this money is going to end up in the hands of landlords,

how they are going to prey on the most vulnerable people of the province — is

that you could have put the increased money only in one side, which is the

support allowance.

[ Page 6139 ]

The support allowance goes directly to the clients, so they have

the flexibility to use that amount the way they want. In other words, they will

be in a situation where these landlords will not be able to prey on them. That

was a simple public policy. That was a simple choice — until you have figured

out exactly how to deal with it and how to fix the computer problem to combine

both the shelter allowance and the support allowance together.

That was an option there, and somehow you didn't choose it. I

would like to know why you didn't choose that option.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, you know, the member makes

it sound like all of these rent increases are going to unscrupulous landlords.

It's a very small percentage, and we're whittling that percentage down every

year by the methods that I'll outline in a moment. Adding $50 to the maximum

shelter rate for all family-unit sizes allows recipients to access more housing

options; recognizes higher costs due to market increases; recognizes market

increases in utilities, particularly heating costs; provides clients who are

currently over a maximum with funds which can now be used for support purposes —

food, clothing, toiletries, etc.

The ministry does work cooperatively with landlords, local

agencies and other levels of government, and the residential tenancy branch to

ensure clients are informed of their rights. For example, in the downtown east

side, the ministry is already working collaboratively with the Downtown Eastside

Residents Association — DERA — the Pivot Legal Society, and new landlords or

owners of properties who are not aware of the rules around rent increases and

eviction notices, to assist clients in exercising their rights under the

residential tenancy agreement.

The ministry's housing integrated task team — which I spoke of

yesterday, and which we call our HIT team — is working closely with clients and

these groups to advise on situations when they become aware of instances where

illegal increases are being sought. The HIT team is monitoring and has prevented

a number of illegal increases simply by contacting owners to advise of the RTA

requirements.

[1020]

I guess in answer to the member's question again, we haven't got

to the point yet where we're going to integrate both. A rental supplement

increase was promised, and we delivered on it. I reiterate: it's the first

increase these people have had since 1992, and it puts them at number one in the

country.

J. Brar: The minister mentioned that he's still working on

combining the shelter allowance as well as the support allowance, and that way

the minister thinks that this will help us actually put it to bed when it comes

to the exploitation of the most vulnerable people of the province.

My question is: can the minister give us some time line as to what

is the plan? What is the time line when the minister will be able to combine

both the shelter allowance and the support allowance so that the most vulnerable

people of the province are not being exploited anymore?

Hon. C. Richmond: About the best information I can give the

member in all sincerity is that it's in the planning stages now. A few other

things have to happen before we can get there. I'll be in a much better position

at this time next year to give you a more definitive answer.

I'm not trying to dodge the question. I'd like to give you a date

right now when we would be able to do this, but I can't. We'll have to wait.

Hopefully you'll still be the critic next year, and I'll still be the minister.

J. Brar: So we have to wait for one year to come back and

ask you the same question again.

Having heard what the minister said, I would certainly suggest to

the minister that this is something very, very important. In particular, the

minister is aware of it; I don't need to emphasize the fact. This is something

which I think should be as expedited as soon as possible, because there are

hundreds of people who are being preyed on by those landlords. One year's time

seems to me a bit of a stretch. If you can do it sooner, of course, that is

better. That will provide a fairer administrative process, in fairness to the

people who are most vulnerable in the province.

My last question on this particular piece to the ministry is: we

have been talking about how to deal with it, but there are some special

categories of people who are being preyed on by the landlords. Those are people

with mental disabilities, people who have huge addiction problems and who cannot

make informed and good decisions for themselves. What is the minister going to

do to assist those people? The solution for those people may not, at the

beginning, be a police action. There is much more that needs to be done before

the police come into the picture. Do you have any support network so that these

people are not being exploited because of their limitations?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, we are very much aware of the

problem and have been for some time, as I've told you, and it concerns us

greatly. There are not that many in the category that you mentioned. We're

trying to whittle it down one client at a time, as they say, by getting people

to have their cheques deposited directly with the owners of these properties.

Quite often it's the manager that's ripping them off, to put it in

the vernacular. We have reached nearly 90 percent effectiveness in having their

cheques deposited directly, and we know the problems they're under. They get

threatened by some of these unscrupulous managers, if you like, that if they

don't hand over their cheque, they'll be kicked out, so they hand it over. In

some cases they get a few dollars' worth of drugs, and then they get kicked out

anyway.

[1025]

We work firstly with the residential tenancy people to make sure

the law is being complied with, but in

[ Page 6140 ]

extreme cases like I've just mentioned, this is where we call in the police

to go in and deal with these people. It's unfortunate, but we do have people out

there who prey on these people. We're whittling them down one by one, and we've

let them know we are coming after them. We are being proactive. We don't like

them any more than you do or anyone else does, but they still exist out there.

We want them to know we are coming after them.

J. Brar: I would like to move on to a new topic, Minister.

If you need to bring in your staff, you have a choice. I want to talk now about

the overpayment audit which was conducted.

I would like to start with a copy of an audit we received on the

JP2 contracts through FOI entitled Final Report on Job Placement Program

(JP2): Risk and Control Assessment . The audit concluded that in their

opinion, there are no effective processes in place to ensure the accuracy and

validity of payments to service providers and that they estimate the possible

financial exposure to the ministry from inaccurate billing data to be between $1

million and $4 million in overpayments per year.

I would like to ask the minister a question. Can the minister

explain why the Ministry of Finance auditors came to this conclusion about his

ministry's employment program contacts?

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

Hon. C. Richmond: Thank you, Mr. Chair — the new Mr. Chair.

This was a subject that was canvassed extensively over the last

four or five months with the member opposite. In fact, the audit that he spoke

of is one that I decided we would discuss and release publicly to the press and

to the member, because we had nothing to hide in it. I will just go off the top

of my head for a moment and say that when we started into this job placement

program and followed up with the B.C. employment program — especially when the

program first started back in about 2002, before I was the minister — ministry

staff realized that they were into bigger programs than they'd ever managed

before, and it was quite outside what they'd been used to managing.

These were huge contracts. In fact, the total of the contracts was

in the area of $80 million or more — not each contract, but the total of the

contracts. They decided to ask for audits to see if they were handling it

properly, that there weren't loopholes — that they had to be doing things right.

I commend them for that. The request came from the ministry, and this was the

last of the audits that were done. The one you were talking about was the last

one of three audits.

In each case — and the one you mentioned, the $1 million to $4

million — the auditor said that because of maybe a procedure that wasn't exactly

right, there could have been an exposure of between $1 million and $4 million.

The purpose of these audits, of course, was to assess compliance with contracts,

but note that the auditor said that there could have been an exposure.

The report found for that period from 2002 to 2004, in 2 percent

of the cases, or approximately $1 million, there was evidence of overpayments

resulting from situations where independence was not due to employment. From

2005 on, after the ministry implemented the verification process, the ministry

did not pay service providers until there was adequate evidence that

demonstrated that independence was due to employment.

[1030]

The ministry recovered the $1 million in overpayments when

negotiating the early settlement payments with JP service providers in January

of 2006. Although the exposure was there, and there was a million dollars that

had been overpaid, it was recovered. The last audit went on to verify that.

This was a risk and controls review, as I have stated. It looked

at the checks and balances in the JP2 program. A traditional audit report looks

at the past and concludes whether things were done correctly. A risk and control

review looks forward. It looks at a program's checks and balances and where we

can improve them. A risk and control review follows a standard methodology. The

auditors identify what could potentially go wrong — which are the risks — and

assess the likelihood and consequence of these events happening and what we're

doing to prevent them — the controls. Then they assess the residual risk and

determine whether the controls are either adequate or inadequate.

In the JP2 risk and control review the auditors assessed 91 risk

areas ranging from housekeeping items, such as keeping manuals up to date, to

key items such as achieving program goals. Some 74 percent of the risk areas

were evaluated as adequate. However, the auditors identified three general areas

where the ministry needed to take action and calculated that if this wasn't

done, the ministry could potentially make overpayments of $1 million to $4

million per year, as the member stated.

They also noted that we'd made good progress in strengthening our

controls, and we took action in all three areas of concern. The first was our

verification process. These were to make sure that payments were triggered only

when clients became independent due to employment. We put new processes in place

in January of 2005.

The second area was our reporting. We developed new reports and

improved our forecasting methodology. Work commenced on this in the fall of

The third area was the audit trail being able to track changes in

the client's status. We implemented some new audit tools — the same ones that

the auditors themselves used — in September of 2004. In

summary, we took action

and reduced our residual risk to low. This is as good as it gets.

J. Brar: Thank you, Minister, for the brief clarification.

I would actually remind the minister about the document of his own ministry

which was released as recently as January 25, 2007, entitled Ministry of

Employment and

[ Page 6141 ]

Income Assistance Job Placement Program Briefing. On page 4 what we have

is the payment model, job placement pilot program JP1 from 2000 to 2002. What

they found under that was that service providers were paid when clients referred

to them became independent from income assistance for any reason. In other

words, the employment was not a requirement at that time.

When you talk about, in the same document, job placement JP2 from

2002 to 2006, what has been mentioned here in your document…. Service providers

were paid when clients referred to them became independent from income

assistance due to employment, and that case had been underlined. So in fact you

found that in 2002. Now you are telling us, Minister, after two more years in

2004, that you implemented verifying the employment status of clients before

making payment to service providers effective 2005.

[1035]

My question to you: how many times do you need to do these audits

in order to actually implement effectively so that the hard-earned money of

taxpayers is being paid to these service providers for the actual work they are

doing?

Hon. C. Richmond: The JP1 program, the job placement pilot

program. From 2000 to 2002, the service providers were paid when clients

referred to them became independent from income assistance for any reason.

Apparently, that was put there because of the urgency to get the program up and

running.

Subsequently, after we requested an audit, the auditor said that

service providers were paid when clients referred to them became independent

from income assistance due to employment, not for any reason. The auditors also

found that the one place where there was overpayment of a million dollars, which

the auditors identified, was recovered. The only overpayment that they could

find was $1 million, and we recovered that.

J. Brar: I will come back to the $1 million issue. But at

this point in time my question is simple. The recommendations were made by the

auditor in 2002 to implement verifying that people became independent due to

employment. Did you and your ministry implement it effective immediately after

that audit, which is 2002? If the answer is yes, I would like to see the

confirmation.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's difficult to put exact dates when

everything was implemented. But to reiterate what I said earlier, the ministry

requested these audits to make sure that they were doing things in the proper

fashion. As soon as they were told that they should tighten certain things up,

it was done.

The audit report was received in March of 2005, but they took

action as soon as we received the draft report in April of 2004. So as soon as

the auditors pointed out where procedures could be tightened up, they were

implemented immediately even though the final report wasn't available, the first

one, until 2005.

J. Brar: I totally disagree with the comments made by the

minister here. This is the document of the Ministry of Employment and Income

Assistance — the most recent document I'm talking about. This suggests very

clearly — unless the minister tells me otherwise, that this is a mistake — that

at the end of 2002 the ministry was advised that the only way they should be

making payments to the service providers is after verification of people

becoming independent due to employment. That was at the end of 2002.

[1040]

Now the minister is telling me that they started implementing that

process in 2005. In other words, I would take it this way: the minister failed

to implement these recommendations for two years, which are 2003 and 2004. If

that's not the case, I would like to know the answer from the minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: When the job placement program was

permanently established by the ministry in 2002, as part of a fair and open

tendering process we introduced employment verification. Service providers were

only paid when clients became independent from income assistance due to

employment. The first payment was made only upon receiving proof of a client's

employment — that is, employer name, start date, location of employment, hours

per week and wage rate. That was started in 2002.

J. Brar: Thanks for the clarification, Minister. I will

take it that effective 2002, the ministry started verifying the employment — the

people who became independent due to employment — before making the payments.

That relates to the overpayment of $1 million, so I will come back to that in a

few moments.

My next question is, again, on this document. A recent document

entitled Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance Job Placement Program

Briefing was released by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance on

January 25, 2007. On page 9, under "Audit finding," it points out: "Managerial

and operational reports not meeting needs."

Subsequently, under "Action taken," it claims: "New reports and

forecasting methodology implemented."

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain what was

missing from the existing managerial and operational reports for not meeting the

needs, and what were the new additions, for the new reports and forecasting

methodology, claimed to be implemented in this document?

[1045]

Hon. C. Richmond: I have the same page here as the member

has, and it says: "The audit findings, managerial and operational reports not

meeting needs. Action taken — new reports and forecasting methodology

implemented."

The member is asking what exactly was done. Well, we're down to

pretty miniscule management tools here, but: "New query tools were implemented

to monitor the program, and new reconciliation processes were put in place."

[ Page 6142 ]

J. Brar: That didn't help much to understand as to what was

changed. One of the discussions we are talking about was that there was no

effective system to verify — before making payments — whether people have

actually been employed or not. Now, this piece, in my opinion, talks about that

those reports which were being submitted by the manager did not have sufficient

information, or accurate information, to verify the employment status of the

income assistance clients so that the accurate payment could be made.

I would like to ask the minister: particularly when it comes to

the verification of the employment status of the clients for whom the payments

were made, was that part of this report or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't know what more I can say except

to repeat that we requested these audits so that any shortcomings in reporting

could be corrected. The auditors found places where we were vulnerable. We took

action to correct these, I guess, improper reporting methods. We took the action

immediately that we were told. We recovered the $1 million that had been…. The

only overpayment the auditors could find was $1 million, which we recovered.

A new program is now in place which started last July, I believe

it was — the B.C. employment program. The program that the member is talking

about ended on March 31, 2006, and now we're into doing the estimates for

2007-2008.

Beyond that, we had absolutely nothing to hide from these audits.

In fact, the last one I insisted we do publicly. We called a press conference. I

believe the member was there. I'm not sure.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Richmond: No, you weren't there, but we called the

press. We opened up all three audits. We said: here were the findings. Here's

what we've done. We recovered $1 million, which was the only overpayment, and

gave everybody in the media a copy of all three audits, which I believe the

member has — a copy of all three.

To me, the issue has been put to rest. Besides, it's a program

that ended on March 31, 2006, and we're discussing the estimates of 2007-2008.

J. Brar: The $1 million which the minister claims was the

only amount identified by the auditor…. According to these audits, that is not

true, so I'm going to ask specific questions on that. We are talking about it

because your ministry put together this report just last month. I think it makes

perfect sense to ask questions which are relevant to the report you put together

this year, just a few months ago.

A major finding of the audit, which I'm talking about, is that:

"The current system calculates payments to service providers when benefit

payments cease regardless of the reasons of the client's independence from

benefits."

[1050]

What the audit, which is a 2004 audit, is saying basically…. The

minister just made comments a few minutes ago that the ministry actually

implemented verification of employment before making payments to the service

providers in 2002. But after two years this new audit again finds a different

thing, that payments were being made when clients were kicked off the welfare

roll.

My question to the minister is: can the minister explain why the

"independence through employment" requirement for payment wasn't being tracked,

since it was part of the agreement?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm not sure I follow everything that the

member says. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than I have. The

auditors concluded that the verification processes we introduced in January 2005

worked well and that prior to that time approximately $1 million had been paid

to service providers for clients who became independent of income assistance for

reasons other than employment.

The ministry used this information in negotiating the final

payment to the service providers. The $1 million was recovered during

negotiations. I don't think I could be any more plain than that.

There is one item that the auditors found. It was an item of

duplicate payment, where a client had gone to more than one service provider

without the service provider's knowledge. They had no way of knowing that this

client…. I believe there was only one, maybe two.

A Voice: Thirty-two clients.

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm sorry. There were more.

The amount of money I had is right. It was $92,000, and I was

wrong on the number. There were 32 clients — I didn't realize it was that high —

who went to more than one service provider. The service providers, of course —

the contractors — had no knowledge that they'd been to another service provider.

So there was $92,000 paid for these 32 clients that went to more than one

service provider.

That's the only money that we did not recover. We had no way of

recovering that $92,000 over a period of four years. That, we couldn't recover.

J. Brar: Can the minister clarify when in fact the ministry

did start verifying the "independence through employment" requirement? Was it

2002 or 2005?

Hon. C. Richmond: We find out more interesting things the

more we dig into this. In 2002 we began to verify people leaving income

assistance.

[1055]

The tools available to us, though, weren't inadequate to detect

clients who, for example, had a part-time job and then left income assistance to

go back to school or got married or moved away from the province, which a lot of

people did in the 1990s. We had no way of verifying that because we had

inherited a program

[ Page 6143 ]

that was started in the year 2000 by the then NDP government, which had no

controls on it at all. So as soon as we had the first audit done and they said

there were some inadequacies in the reporting system, we took steps to plug

those holes right away in the year 2002.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. If I may, just to caution the

member, we certainly intend to give a wide latitude of questioning to the member

— make it available. But I would encourage the member to relate the questions to

the current estimates.

J. Brar: Thanks, Chair.

I will take the response from the minister that the verification

of employment before making payment was in fact implemented in 2002. But I'm now

talking about the audit which was conducted by 2004, which is mentioned in a

recent report which was released in January.

I believe the JP2 contract, the second contract…in July 2002. This

audit took place in April 2004. That is more than 20 months where contractors

were being paid when people left income assistance for any reasons, not the

employment reason.

Approximately how many people left income assistance during this

period? How many people left income assistance during those two years? What

percentage of them would have gone through the employment program, if you can

tell me?

Hon. C. Richmond: I don't think we have the exact data that

you're after, but this is as close as I can come to it. The total actual gross

referrals were 108,966 that were referred to service providers, and the total

actual number of clients achieving at least one month of independence was

28,867.

The Chair: And Member, again, if you are looking for

historical data, I'm sure the minister would be more than happy to give you

that. But….

J. Brar: I'm happy to…. But I think I have the right to ask

questions.

The Chair: You certainly do. We intend to give you much

latitude. But we would again direct you to ask them in the context of their

relevance to the current estimates.

J. Brar: But Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify that I'm

asking questions related to this very recent report. These things have been

mentioned in this report, so I take it that it's part of the current estimates.

[1100]

The Chair: As I've indicated, I've given considerable

latitude on this, and I'm looking for you to be more creative in directing those

and the relevance of that report to current estimates.

J. Brar: It's my understanding that if we're to ask more

information about that, we can go back and ask the ministry directly on that

one. I do have other questions. I don't want to spend a lot of time on that one,

but we can get the answers directly from the ministry. Is that the

understanding, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: That's correct, Member.

J. Brar: Okay. The audit also notes that the contractors

were getting some financial compensation when a welfare recipient died and that

an informal agreement was in place with two of four service providers to reduce

the financial impact to the ministry of milestones being generated due to the

death of a client. This is a quote from the actual audit.

[A. Horning in the chair.]

Yet on November 23, 2006, in the Williams Lake Tribune —

last year, I'm talking about — the minister is quoted as saying: "It is

completely outrageous…to suggest that government was paying its service

providers for dead welfare recipients."

My question to the minister: is the minister implying that the

auditors from the Ministry of Finance made up the line about an informal

agreement with two of the four service providers to reduce the financial impact

to the ministry of milestones being generated due to the death of a client?

Hon. C. Richmond: The auditors in the report that the

member is referring to said there was potential for people having passed away

while they were still on the rolls of service providers. We have verified that

there were no cases where payments were made for a client who had died — none

whatsoever.

This was all canvassed publicly in the news conference that I held

to go over this audit, the final audit, which gave us a pretty clean bill of

health. I'm going to read it again, because it's worth repeating.

It's the JP2 final report. This was the third and final audit. It

was a traditional audit report, and it looked at compliance with contracts and

policy. The auditors selected a statistical sample of JP2 clients and examined

ministry files and service provider files to determine if payments were made

only when a client became independent due to employment. It answers the

question: did the possible financial exposure identified in risks and controls

review — that is, a potential overpayment of $1 million to $4 million —

materialize?

The auditors concluded that the verification process we introduced

in January 2005 worked well and that prior to that time, approximately $1

million had been paid to service providers for clients who became independent of

income assistance for reasons other than employment. The ministry used this

information in negotiating the final payment to the service prov